Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-14-2024

(02-14-2024, 03:41 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The newly developed "Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs", or GLSDBs, have made their combat debut. 

Approximately twice the range as GMLRS, ~90 miles, but able to be launched from the same HIMARS or M270 platform, or even something kludged together. As the article points out, the component pieces are found all over NATO stockpiles, so theoretically Europe could pay for/supply these if US aid remains a problem. 

https://www.twz.com/news-features/ground-launched-small-diameter-bombs-make-combat-debut-in-ukraine

Glad they are there, but I think the article is at best significantly over-stating that these weapons are "found all over NATO stockpiles". Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb It would appear that the only NATO country that literally "bought" any was the Netherlands (603). Italy bought a license to manufacture them for the Italian air force, so they may have a lot. Australia and Israel have a pile of them, but that's not NATO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System
The M26 rocket was indeed ubiquitous, but since it's warheads were cluster munitions most nations have destroyed their stocks. I am not sure which (if any) EU nations still have them. From the above:

Quote:The M26 rocket and its derivatives were removed from the US Army's active inventory in June 2009, as they did not satisfy a July 2008 Department of Defense policy directive, issued under President George W. Bush, that US cluster munitions that leave more than 1% of submunitions as unexploded ordnance must be destroyed by the end of 2018.[54] (The United States is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which prohibits them).

Fortunately the US retained some (not nearly all) of it's stocks and some have been used in Ukraine with cluster munitions. We can still make GLSDBs from them.

In any case, I suspect that doesn't much matter. NATO can already pay Boeing/Saab to manufacture the units. That doesn't require any US money at all. ITAR approval obviously wouldn't be a problem as Ukraine already has some. I am also pretty sure that these units aren't "MacGyvered" together. There actually is a manufacturing process required. The "inter-stage adapter" is not part of either the GBU-39 or the M26 rocket.  If necessary, Saab could be used as a "conduit" for the sale, as I am sure there are some "shared rights" involved in the joint venture. The EU could also order Patriots for Ukraine for that matter. The problem is that it will take time to build them. There is an order queue.

The article also talks about the INS in the GLSDB being able to still guide the weapon in the presence of GPS jamming. That is true. However JDAMS also have an INS that does the same. Almost all such weapons do, if for no other reason GPS sometimes "drops out" (usually briefly) due to geometry. The GLSDB probably has a newer INS which is "better", but it isn't that much better. The INS won't make them noticeably "better" than JDAMS. I was under the impression that the GLSDB MAY have a more "jam resistant" GPS but the article said nothing to that effect.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-14-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-could-cost-ukraine-war-164514933.html

Probably preaching to the choir, but the above says the "optimistic" estimate is that Ukraine could last 18 months if the Europeans greatly increased their aid. Others dispute that in the article. The article says nothing about possible Ukrainian morale collapse, which IMO is not at all out of the question.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-14-2024

(02-14-2024, 07:00 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-could-cost-ukraine-war-164514933.html

Probably preaching to the choir, but the above says the "optimistic" estimate is that Ukraine could last 18 months if the Europeans greatly increased their aid. Others dispute that in the article. The article says nothing about possible Ukrainian morale collapse, which IMO is not at all out of the question.

Most likely preaching tot he choir.  NATO nations seem to have gotten the message that they need to up their defense budgets, but no matter what I am sure they assume we will be there when push comes to shove.  Not a sure bet.  Reminds me of the bad old days.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-14-2024

(02-14-2024, 07:37 PM)GK3 Wrote:  

(02-14-2024, 07:00 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-could-cost-ukraine-war-164514933.html

Probably preaching to the choir, but the above says the "optimistic" estimate is that Ukraine could last 18 months if the Europeans greatly increased their aid. Others dispute that in the article. The article says nothing about possible Ukrainian morale collapse, which IMO is not at all out of the question.

Most likely preaching tot he choir.  NATO nations seem to have gotten the message that they need to up their defense budgets, but no matter what I am sure they assume we will be there when push comes to shove.  Not a sure bet.  Reminds me of the bad old days.

You must be older than I am :-). I don't remember a time that NATO wasn't expecting the US to respond and help contain any Russian/Warsaw Pact incursion into "Europe", basically meaning the FRG. You are quite correct that the other NATO nations assumed that if push came to shove the US would be there. They just hoped that we would indeed be willing to risk Philadelphia for Frankfurt. 

Unfortunately many forget that from the US point of view NATO provides functions beyond deterrence and common defense. NATO and the implicit guarantee of the US nuclear capability allowed us to convince the other NATO nations they didn't need their own Nuclear weapons. It didn't work with France, but everybody else did abstain. Obviously if North Korea can develop nuclear weapons, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Spain etc. could as well. That eventuality would be massively destabilizing.

The second thing that NATO has done is prevented NATO allies from fighting each other. Greece and Türkiye are often "on edge", but the fact they are both in NATO greatly reduces the odds of them fighting each other. Europe (the NATO part anyway) has had 79 years of no wars. That is some kind of a modern record. NATO also has so far kind of kept a lid on the non-NATO Balkan countries. Keeping the peace in Europe is no totally easy feat historically. The perception that another war in Europe is "unthinkable" is true at least to a great extent because these nations are allied in NATO and it is just "normal" that they at least pretend to get along.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-15-2024

I am all for NATO, but I think this may overstate the case that membership in NATO supported peace. I might argue it was mostly the other way around. With the exception of Greece/Turkey, NATO accepted nations that were low risks for conflict with other NATO countries. Arguably, the enticement of NATO’s protection motivated factions with certain countries/regions to settle their differences so they could join.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-15-2024

(02-15-2024, 09:19 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I am all for NATO, but I think this may overstate the case that membership in NATO supported peace. I might argue it was mostly the other way around. With the exception of Greece/Turkey, NATO accepted nations that were low risks for conflict with other NATO countries.

I agree, but maybe not for the reasons one might expect. Historically, France and Germany had a long history of armed conflict. So do France and Italy. While at the end of WW II things were sweetness and light, there was no certainty it would stay that way. NATO is a significant part of the reason it did. Soviet Russia was obviously quite willing to support things that would sow discord in Europe. If there were no NATO, fomenting discord would certainly have been much easier. There were large Communist parties in France and Italy that would have helped and neither of those countries were pictures of stability in the 50s and early 60s. For example the FRG could have been a political "squeeze" target that without NATO to defend themselves might have felt the need to Ostpolitik much earlier and much more "comprehensively". France's withdrawal from the military arm of NATO and the expulsion of all NATO bases from France did send lots of shock waves. A authoritarian regime in France (which General de Gaulle arguably was)  or Italy might have turned to armed conflict to distract the population.  The Force de frappe was arguably a step that enabled such action and was at least partially done for political reasons. NATO gave everybody else some certainty that France couldn't intimidate them by force.

Quote:Arguably, the enticement of NATO’s protection motivated factions with certain countries/regions to settle their differences so they could join.

IMO true. It also reassured all nations within NATO that if one of their neighbors (NATO or otherwise) "goes rogue" they won't have to fight them alone. NATO therefore makes it unnecessary for European nations to form "alliance blocks" that (while ostensibly defensive in nature) historically created the need for other nations to form counterbalancing alliance blocks. Today, since they are all in NATO, they are all already in a defensive alliance. It also makes such rogue actions much less attractive :-). With guys like Orbán around such action is always possible.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-16-2024

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/anyone-still-afraid-united-states-robert-gates?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=twofa&utm_campaign=Why%20America%20Can%E2%80%99t%20Have%20It%20All&utm_content=20240216&utm_term=FA%20This%20Week%20-%20112017

Not behind a paywall. I think this podcast with Robert Gates presents a "correct" analysis of what needs to happen in Ukraine. What he says about Crimea and the Kerch bridge may sound a bit familiar :-).  IMO worth a listen for that reason alone. The rest of it is "interesting" in many ways and also worth a listen IMO.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 02-16-2024

Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, died in a Siberian prison. From cold, disease, malnutrition or execution, no one knows. The Biden administration previously said that the death of Navalny would strain international relations. Doubt it. Navalny was a proponent of the Ukraine war, he just disagreed over its strategy.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-16-2024

House Leader Johnson, today, in response to Putin presumably murdering Navalny-

“In the coming days, as international leaders are meeting in Munich, we must be clear that Putin will be met with united opposition.”
https://x.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1758523524111540601?s=20

House Leader Johnson, yesterday-

“The Republican-led House will not be jammed or forced into passing a foreign aid bill"
https://apnews.com/article/house-speaker-johnson-ukraine-aid-06889e166a5417d5b4bc7795813e37ef

Hmmmmmmmm

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-16-2024

(02-16-2024, 11:45 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  House Leader Johnson, today, in response to Putin presumably murdering Navalny-

“In the coming days, as international leaders are meeting in Munich, we must be clear that Putin will be met with united opposition.”
https://x.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1758523524111540601?s=20

House Leader Johnson, yesterday-

“The Republican-led House will not be jammed or forced into passing a foreign aid bill"
https://apnews.com/article/house-speaker-johnson-ukraine-aid-06889e166a5417d5b4bc7795813e37ef

Hmmmmmmmm

It is tempting to hope Johnson is now going to push the Ukraine-Taiwan aid through. I kind of doubt that, unfortunately. It seems that more and more members of our society have the attribute they can hold two apparently contradictory positions with equal fervor :-).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-16-2024

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it"

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-16-2024

The salary for most members of congress is 174k.  I would be surprised if members of congress were unable to earn similar or better compensation in the private sector.  The ones who are lawyers could easily hang a shingle and make decent money.  The nationwide median compensation for lawyers is not so far from 174k, and most of those people have no book of business.  Members of Congress have a big enough profile that they could easily generate 20 hours per week of billable time.  Even working half time at modest hourly rates, and after paying the limited expenses for a solo shop, they still would net more than the congressional salary.  They could be their own boss and wouldn't need to travel much for work.  

In sum, I think most members of congress are there because they want to be, not for the paycheck.  That seems strange to me because politics are so toxic these days.  And, in fact, there are some members of Congress who have retired recently because the job sucks.  But the ones who are left probably want to stay because they like the job.  Again, weird to me, but likely true.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 81alum - 02-16-2024

(02-16-2024, 04:25 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The salary for most members of congress is 174k.  I would be surprised if members of congress were unable to earn similar or better compensation in the private sector.  The ones who are lawyers could easily hang a shingle and make decent money.  The nationwide median compensation for lawyers is not so far from 174k, and most of those people have no book of business.  Members of Congress have a big enough profile that they could easily generate 20 hours per week of billable time.  Even working half time at modest hourly rates, and after paying the limited expenses for a solo shop, they still would net more than the congressional salary.  They could be their own boss and wouldn't need to travel much for work.  

In sum, I think most members of congress are there because they want to be, not for the paycheck.  That seems strange to me because politics are so toxic these days.  And, in fact, there are some members of Congress who have retired recently because the job sucks.  But the ones who are left probably want to stay because they like the job.  Again, weird to me, but likely true.

Having worked on the Hill for a Senator, I can say that in those days (long ago) your analysis would have been correct.  It still may be.  Most people who run for Congress do so for good motives.  People like Santos are rare.  And nearly all members could have far more lucrative careers if they were not in Congress.  They don't start out as self-interested.

But the motives for getting to Congress supply the ends, and the system of campaigns and policy making supply the means, and the means rapidly grow to dominate the lives of members of Congress.  The ends must be temporarily put aside, and sometimes they are altogether forgotten.

The classic analysis of this phenomenon is now very old, but is still very much worth reading:

https://politicalscience.yale.edu/publications/congress-electoral-connection

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-16-2024

Ukraine is retreating from Avdiivka, which has held for 9 years. Ukraine brought in one of their best units, 3rd Assault Brigade, formerly Azov Battalion, presumably as a sort of rear guard but they are under heavy pressure and the map is ugly. Resupply routes are all under Russian fire.

Also unclear how much defensive depth Ukraine has. Fortunately Russia's mechanized forces have been so degraded they probably can't really take full advantage of the situation.

This largely has developed because of artillery ammunition shortages. US aid needs to get restarted now or this will just be the start of a slow motion collapse.

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1758638627545063926?s=20

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-16-2024

(02-16-2024, 05:13 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Also unclear how much defensive depth Ukraine has. Fortunately Russia's mechanized forces have been so degraded they probably can't really take full advantage of the situation.

Probably true. Russia hasn't demonstrated much ability to move fast.

Quote:This largely has developed because of artillery ammunition shortages. US aid needs to get restarted now or this will just be the start of a slow motion collapse.

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1758638627545063926?s=20

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-16-2024

I know the EU was delayed with its Ukraine funding package as well, but the 50 billion Euro package has since been approved.  Do you all know whether those funds and supplies actually have started flowing into Ukraine?  If so, that may buy a bit of time though obviously Ukraine needs all the aid it can get asap.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-16-2024

(02-16-2024, 05:59 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I know the EU was delayed with its Ukraine funding package as well, but the 50 billion Euro package has since been approved.  Do you all know whether those funds and supplies actually have started flowing into Ukraine?  If so, that may buy a bit of time though obviously Ukraine needs all the aid it can get asap.

The problem is that it is economic aid. Converting it to hardware requires a contractor that can deliver. There are none.

ADDITION:
From https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/experts-react-the-eu-just-approved-a-50-billion-euro-aid-package-for-ukraine-how-will-it-impact-the-war/

Quote:Today’s EU package provides Ukraine with money it needs to continue, but to defend itself and protect its people it also needs materiel, which the agreement does not provide.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 02-17-2024

(02-16-2024, 05:28 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-16-2024, 05:13 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Also unclear how much defensive depth Ukraine has. Fortunately Russia's mechanized forces have been so degraded they probably can't really take full advantage of the situation.

Probably true. Russia hasn't demonstrated much ability to move fast.

Quote:This largely has developed because of artillery ammunition shortages. US aid needs to get restarted now or this will just be the start of a slow motion collapse.

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1758638627545063926?s=20

Exactly so, except for the last part. The slow collapse can become a fast collapse if the troops lose confidence in their leadership or see no way to ever win. The lack of US aid is undoubtedly demoralizing. They had friends die to hold the position, but now that has been made meaningless by lack of ammo. It doesn't get much worse than that.

You could not be more correct!!

---

(02-16-2024, 07:08 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-16-2024, 05:59 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I know the EU was delayed with its Ukraine funding package as well, but the 50 billion Euro package has since been approved.  Do you all know whether those funds and supplies actually have started flowing into Ukraine?  If so, that may buy a bit of time though obviously Ukraine needs all the aid it can get asap.

The problem is that it is economic aid. Converting it to hardware requires a contractor that can deliver. There are none.

ADDITION:
From https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/experts-react-the-eu-just-approved-a-50-billion-euro-aid-package-for-ukraine-how-will-it-impact-the-war/

Quote:Today’s EU package provides Ukraine with money it needs to continue, but to defend itself and protect its people it also needs materiel, which the agreement does not provide.

This all makes Estonian's Prime Ministers statements perhaps more meaningful.  We can have all the good intentions, but if you don't have the means to put those intentions in force, you are sort of whistling in the wind. Seems to me that the Ukraine - Russian conflict has illustrated one big problem for the West.  The war has burned through munitions of all kinds at a staggering rate.  The Russians seem to never throw anything away and are wheeling out 30 year old tanks, which seems stupid, but if the other side has no useful tanks, it is not so dumb after all.  The situation seems to illustrate that it is best that stockpiles be rebuilt in much larger quantities that in the past. 
He who runs out of ammunition first loses.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-17-2024

(02-17-2024, 07:40 AM)GK3 Wrote:  This all makes Estonian's Prime Ministers statements perhaps more meaningful.  We can have all the good intentions, but if you don't have the means to put those intentions in force, you are sort of whistling in the wind.

Amen! Many European nations (particular the smaller ones) simply don't have a big enough GDP to have enough "means" to ever resist Russia on their own.  They can spend their 2% plus more and that still will be true. The larger and more prosperous nations like France and Germany do have the means. They simply believed that after the end of the "cold" war they were "safe" and did not have to worry about a war in Europe ever again, especially when the US would keep any aggressor from inside Europe "under control". This was not a totally crazy idea, and had the big advantage it freed up lots of Government spending to be used for social welfare. The US did the same to some extent.

In 1990 the US Army had 18 active combat divisions and 10 reserve.  Germany from 1980 to 1990 had 12 active combat divisions and a whole bunch of "territorial" brigades in reserve. The German UMT resulted in everybody having military training and being subject to recall. In 2011 the German Army was reduced to 3 divisions and UMT was abolished. Today, all three divisions have trouble with force structure and one of them is a total organizational "bastard child". The US Army today officially fields 10 to 12 active "divisions", although the frequent reorganizations around the "brigade" concept  muddies the waters greatly. These divisions all have attached reserve "augments" that are not actually with the division. The summary way to look at it is that the US army today is 60% of the size it was in 1990 (732,403 troops in 1990, 452,689 in 2023). The German army today is 37% of the size it was in 1990 (495,000 troops + 1.3 million reservists in 1990, 181,672 in 2023). It is interesting to note that in 1990 Germany fielded as many active divisions (and many more reservists) as the US fields today. The US Army in 2024 will be the smallest the US has had since 1939.  The US also has to worry about Asia and the Middle East. GFL if we have to fight the dreaded "land war in Asia".

The "knock on" effects of these reductions was that the manufactures of munitions saw their potential "market" drop considerably. It was considerably worse for Germany. Additionally, the "downsizing" allowed the forces to greatly reduce their purchases for many years as they ran down their existing stocks. Several years of no orders at all put may companies out of business or forced them to downsize radically and merge with others in the same sector. It also made for almost no investment capital availability, as who wants to invest in a very competitive but rapidly shrinking industry. The very large companies had the money to survive. Most smaller ones did not. The "means" isn't gone, but it is minuscule compared to the 1990s even.

Quote:Seems to me that the Ukraine - Russian conflict has illustrated one big problem for the West.  The war has burned through munitions of all kinds at a staggering rate.  The Russians seem to never throw anything away and are wheeling out 30 year old tanks, which seems stupid, but if the other side has no useful tanks, it is not so dumb after all.  The situation seems to illustrate that it is best that stockpiles be rebuilt in much larger quantities that in the past. 
He who runs out of ammunition first loses.

Lots of truth here, but there are conflating factors. NATO never has intended to get into artillery duels with Russia on a fixed front. NATO intended to seize command of the air and obliterate Russian artillery (and everybody else :-) on the ground. Russia knew this. Their response was to build a large, integrated air defense system including missiles of all type and the PVO to defend their homeland and troops. In the 1970s NATO could be pretty sure Russia's air defense would fail, but after that things started looking a bit dicey. There were two thrusts against the increasing Russian capability. One was generating lots of EA and anti-radiation SEAD/DEAD capability. The USAF felt they could win with that, but feared it would incur significant losses doing so. The other was stealth. Stealth worked good, so the other efforts atrophied. Air superiority was (and is) still the key to NATO strategy.

NATO absolutely never intended to get into a long infantry war with the Soviet Union. We would lose eventually. They had more troops. NATO intended to utilize maneuver warfare to get in the Russian rear areas, chew up the "B" and "C" divisions waiting there and cut off supplies to the "A" divisions. These "A" divisions were tasked with cutting Europe off from resupply by the US. If it looked like they would succeed before NATO did, we would use tactical nuclear weapons. In any case, we were not going to have a "long" war. Russia wasn't planning one either, because they feared  our air forces would tear them up even if our armies did not. The were going to "go for broke"  and try to get to the French border before we could stop them. If we were stopping them and tearing up their logistics, they would use tactical nuclear weapons. Either way, it wouldn't be a "long" war. Thank God none of this ever happened.

The obvious problem is that things often don't go as planned. That said, the US has "enough" stocks to resupply Ukraine. We just need to do it. We are obviously running down our own stocks, but since we have to be prepared to fight in Asia and the Middle East, not just in Europe, we have a lot of artillery stock. The problem is Ukraine isn't NATO and they can't use their air force to interdict Russian supply lines. We are mismatched to them as an ally. The F-16s are a (somewhat weak and very belated) attempt to "fix" that. Ukraine realized that from day one. For some reason NATO either didn't get it or had to pretend otherwise for political reasons.

We also have LOTS of tanks in reserve storage. So does the EU, although many are in private hands. We don't have the ability to completely refurbish them quickly, but neither does Russia. They use them "as-is". Sometimes it works, mostly it doesn't. Russia doesn't care. They just have to keep the pressure on because they perceive that Ukraine can't "hurt" them enough to matter. If Crimea becomes meaningfully threatened, that changes. Ukraine will lose an infantry slugging match eventually. They need to "change the game". They need artillery to stop Russian advances, but they also need air power and artillery to hurt Russia. Crimea is the place to do that. Otherwise, it is moot what date Ukraine runs out of ammunition (unless one believes Russia will collapse internally in the near term).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 02-17-2024

Obviously Russia could obliterate Ukraine into a radioactive slag, but they don't (thankfully).  Russia presumably has other weapons of mass destruction that they aren't using.   So, there are capabilities Russia has that they aren't using, and for good reason.

What about cyber?  There were early discussions of cyber attacks, but I haven't heard any lately.  It does seem that cyber could be used in asymmetric warfare, allowing the smaller side to have significant effects on the populace of the larger side.   But I'd think Ukraine doesn't want to poke that bear.  

We hear about Russia's misinformation campaigns in the US.  Are both Russia and Ukraine putting out misinformation in the other's domain?

Perhaps there's a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff impacting the Russian war machine (manufacturing, shipping, etc)  that isn't being made public.  Or is cyber too difficult for each side, or too risky?

---